DILL v. ZICKEFOOSE
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE INSTANT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHETHER CHARACTERIZED AS A MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2255 OR A PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2245, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; 2. THE MOTION IN OBJECTION TO TRANSFERRING THIS CASE IN LIGHT OF 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2241(a)'S RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE IS DENIED; 3. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE INSTANT PETITION IS CHARACTERIZED AS A SECTION 2255 MOTION, A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; AND 4. THE CLERK SHALL MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 8/4/2014. 8/5/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER. (lbs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETE DILL, a/k/a DARRYL TUCKER,
WARDEN D. ZICKEFOOSE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2278
AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2014, after considering the Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1-1) filed by the petitioner, Pete Dill, a/k/a
Darryl Tucker, on February 28, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, and the Motion in Objection to Transferring this Case in Light of 28 U.S.C. §
2241(a)’s Respective Jurisdiction Clause filed by the petitioner on May 13, 2014, with this court
(Doc. No. 2), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1-1), whether
characterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction;
The Motion in Objection to Transferring this Case in Light of 28 U.S.C. §
2241(a)’s Respective Jurisdiction Clause (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED;
To the extent that the instant petition is characterized as a section 2255 motion, a
certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue; and
The Clerk shall mark this matter closed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?